Republican Foley Resigns House Seat Over Allegations Of Sexual Harrassment

[DrummerDeanna]

Holy Crap!! Those transcripts are something else!! And yeah - a 16 year old kid may know what he/she is doing/saying - but this is still HIGHLY innapropriate---for a grown elected official to go along with it. It's just gross and even if 16 is still the age of consent in some states - that's still too young and for a man of Foley's age - I'm sorry but it's just sick.

[sparky]

This is rich. Highly entertaining. I did far worse at 16. But not with an elected official old enough to be my father. And certainly not with a republican.

[SuzeQuze]

I think if you were a parent you would find this particularly horrifying. I don't think that you would think your 16 year old boy was mature enough to consent to anything sexual with a middle-aged man, especially one in such a position of power who would yield great influence over your child. Boys can become very confused after a liason with an adult, just as girls can. It can make them depressed, etc. It was just wrong and Foley is 100% to blame given his age and position. Sixteen is still such a young, immature age, they're really still just boys not men.

[AliceLover]

I think its awful that he pushed for a law to make sexual offenders suffer more in prison. Or something to that effect.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I think if you were a parent you would find this particularly horrifying. I don't think that you would think your 16 year old boy was mature enough to consent to anything sexual with a middle-aged man, especially one in such a position of power who would yield great influence over your child. Boys can become very confused after a liason with an adult, just as girls can. It can make them depressed, etc. It was just wrong and Foley is 100% to blame given his age and position. Sixteen is still such a young, immature age, they're really still just boys not men.

Are you kidding me - at 16-18 (the range here) love is an erection

Girls are so different

[sparky]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Are you kidding me - at 16-18 (the range here) love is an erection

And it isn't at 50 ? LOL.

Girls are so different

That's the truth.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Holy Crap!! Those transcripts are something else!!

Setting aside the fact that he's chatting with a 16-year old, the transcript she posted was really, really tame.

Half the people in my family were married by the time they were 16, so I think there might be a slight overreaction here. Still, knowing how nutty people are about anything that even looks like sexual harrassment (and saying that an adult who has a mildly erotic conversation with a 16-year old is a pedophile is really pushing it, IMO)...it was a really, really stupid thing for this guy to do.

Oh, god, and I love how ABC has this disclaimer in all caps "READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED. OMG, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT SEX, HIDE YOUR VIRGIN EYES!"

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Holy Crap!! Those transcripts are something else!! And yeah - a 16 year old kid may know what he/she is doing/saying - but this is still HIGHLY innapropriate---

Absolutely. And what keeps on occurring to me is that while a 16-year old may talk a good game, IMO he/she is really still too young to fully understand the repurcussions of acting on things like this. I mean, when I was 16 I remember getting into sexual conversations with people and the LAST thing I wanted to let on was that I wasn't a woman of the world. I would have never let on that anything anyone said surprised, offended, or intimidated me. I don't think this kid's...shall we say bravado...should be used against him.

Or maybe girls are just different...

[ELIUD]

I don't care how horny a 16 year-old can be or what the age of consent is in Washington. What Foley did is illegal, hypocritical, and predatory. This is karma coming back to bite the replubican party in the ass for the way they went after Clinton.

And it's shocking to listen to those conservative talkshow hosts defend the congressman and blame the teenager like so many are doing.

[strandinthewind]

Put it this way, every single 16 year old guy I knew, including myself, would have given their eyeteeth to have been seduced by a 20 something year old college girl or even a hot 30 something year old. Again, guys are just different when it somes to that it seems.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ELIUD

I don't care how horny a 16 year-old can be or what the age of consent is in Washington. What Foley did is illegal, hypocritical, and predatory. This is karma coming back to bite the replubican party in the ass for the way they went after Clinton.

And it's shocking to listen to those conservative talkshow hosts defend the congressman and blame the teenager like so many are doing.

If the age of consent is 16 and it was consenual - there is no illegal activity unless there is some law I do not know of that makes it illegal for an employer to seduce an employee (note -- I am unsure the employer/employee relationshp would exist here as Foley did not employee these pages, etc. )

Again, I am speaking only to the illegality -- not the morality. Moreover, I think Foloey was wrong for doing this and in states where the age of consent is 18, what he did was illegal.

The far more pressing question though, is the cover up

[sparky]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Put it this way, every single 16 year old guy I knew, including myself, would have given their eyeteeth to have been seduced by a 20 something year old college girl or even a hot 30 something year old. Again, guys are just different when it somes to that it seems.

Completely different. Of course, this is a great scandal because it involves a politician. It is taken to another level entirely by the party of the politican in question, and laced with further irony by his own particular projects (child protection issues). He's an idiot, and he acted rashly and without regard for his own reputation or the general well being of the young man or men involved.
That being said, Strand is right. Horny young men are horny young men. Are they mature enough to deal with the repercussions of their sexual behavior ? Of course not. Did most of us did it anyway ? Absolutely. Like Markolas said, lots of people were married at 16 just one or two generations ago. Hell, at the turn of the century, it was not uncommon for girls to be married and pregnant at 14. It didn't kill them. It was accepted and people dealt with it. I doubt it was ideal, but even though things have changed, it just shows how society shifts.
It has also shifted in terms of hysteria over sexuality in general. It is preposterous to call this guy a pedophile. 16 year old males are not going to be scarred for life by sexual contact. There's a strange between the lines assumption in much of the reaction to this situation that implies that the 16 year old is somehow going to be influenced by such an incident. As if his sexuality might be "changed" or somehow altered. That is disturbing. It speaks about an underlying belief that males under a certain age can have their sexuality switched over by sex with another man. That they can be recruited or something, which is patently ridiculous. But, people have grown increasingly uptight about sex these days, even as society has become immersed in it in every aspect of our media. Perhaps because of it.
The truth is we are all sexual beings. From birth. People either forget that or block it out. The resulting squeamishness about the whole thing is curious and borders on a pathology that has taken on a life completely different from the real concern about the sexual irresponsibility of politicians. It says something about our inherent paranoia and fear about sex in general. It's a puzzling development.

[strandinthewind]

^^^^^

I agree.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by sparky

Completely different. Of course, this is a great scandal because it involves a politician. It is taken to another level entirely by the party of the politican in question, and laced with further irony by his own particular projects (child protection issues). He's an idiot, and he acted rashly and without regard for his own reputation or the general well being of the young man or men involved.
That being said, Strand is right. Horny young men are horny young men. Are they mature enough to deal with the repercussions of their sexual behavior ? Of course not. Did most of us did it anyway ? Absolutely. Like Markolas said, lots of people were married at 16 just one or two generations ago. Hell, at the turn of the century, it was not uncommon for girls to be married and pregnant at 14. It didn't kill them. It was accepted and people dealt with it. I doubt it was ideal, but even though things have changed, it just shows how society shifts.
It has also shifted in terms of hysteria over sexuality in general. It is preposterous to call this guy a pedophile. 16 year old males are not going to be scarred for life by sexual contact. There's a strange between the lines assumption in much of the reaction to this situation that implies that the 16 year old is somehow going to be influenced by such an incident. As if his sexuality might be "changed" or somehow altered. That is disturbing. It speaks about an underlying belief that males under a certain age can have their sexuality switched over by sex with another man. That they can be recruited or something, which is patently ridiculous. But, people have grown increasingly uptight about sex these days, even as society has become immersed in it in every aspect of our media. Perhaps because of it.
The truth is we are all sexual beings. From birth. People either forget that or block it out. The resulting squeamishness about the whole thing is curious and borders on a pathology that has taken on a life completely different from the real concern about the sexual irresponsibility of politicians. It says something about our inherent paranoia and fear about sex in general. It's a puzzling development.

No, what it really comes down to is ethos. This guy is an elected official in our government and he's ****ing around with kids on the internet! Have some ****ing couth man! (Foley, not you Sparky). I get what you're saying about sexuality and how we in the U.S. are very puritanical in our views of it, but come on! This guy has no credibility whatsoever now, he is a hypocrite of the worst order! I think THAT'S where most of the outrage is coming from; he's an elected official who is supposed to be protecting children, not exploiting them. The irony is deafening. And to get caught up in a ridiculous debate about "sexuality" is missing the point, not to mention that the Republicans would LOVE that red herring in order to sweep this stuff under the rug. Let's call a spade a spade and cut the bull****.

[strandinthewind]

I think Sparky's point was that this man is not a pedophile. A pedophile is defined as someone who wants to have sex with, touch, etc., a person whose sexual organs have not yet developed. The purpose is for control and domination, not sexual pleasure per se - though that could be a side effect. Thus, pedophilia really is its own sexuality of it must be termed in that way - though I think it is not sexuality at all as it is all about the control, etc.

Folely, on the other hand, solicited apparently consenual interludes with post pubescent boys. So, this cannot be pedophilia.

Did he do it for control or for sexual pleasure despite it not being pedophilia? Who can say for sure. In the end though, it was wrong for him to seduce a person in his pseudo employ no matter how willing or what age they were. Moreover, that the R's in power knew of this and did nothing about it will ruin them in the end.

I also think that though I hate it to be this way, that he solicited tennage boys is FAR more damning to the far right wingers than if he had solicitied teenage girls. A backward salute to gay bashing if you will.